Talk:Charlie Chaplin/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Another nationality dispute

Responding to this repeated reversion, insisting that he should not be considered an American actor, filmmaker, or composer:

1. He was an unknown bit part silent actor in England;
2. He achieved his main, if not only, notability in the U.S.
3. He was not a British filmmaker per MOS purposes, nor was he a British composer, except for a few of his last films;
4. For the purposes of WP, his notability is therefore mainly from being an American actor, filmmaker and composer.

A similar discussion came up for Olivia de Havilland. And FWIW, the British film, Chaplin (1992), supports this. To therefore exclude his notability as an American filmmaker, and replace it with English filmmaker only, would be misleading in the extreme. In fact, he never moved back to the U.K even after he left the U.S. --Light show (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The only dispute is your own. I didn't give a "rationale" in the edit summary as its self evident. Chaplin is an English actor because he's English. He is not an American. Does a Spaniard who stars in the NBA stop being Spanish? Regards his stage career, he was part of the Karno troupe that made him. Without that there is no Chaplin. As the Boulting Brothers stated regarding Peter Sellers, "he's the greatest comic genius this country has produced since Charles Chaplin".BT Curry (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong in saying Chaplin was unknown in England, he was actually a popular stage performer long before he got in front of a camera.Nationality means country of citizenship. Chaplin was born a British citizen, and never took citizenship in the United States. Therefore it is misleading to say he was a American. The fact that he was a politically active foreigner was why the FBI was so determined to have him being Blacklisted. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, while IMDb isn't something we should cite per WP:WikiProject Film/Resources#Questionable resources, the linked trailer actually never says anything about citizenships anyway, and the film itself (which is mainly based on Chaplin's autobiography and David Robinson's biography on him) clearly notes he wasn't a US citizen. The opening sentence should for the most part only include nations where one has citizenships. It therefore is misleading to call him American as others have noted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to what nationality we list living people as, citizenship comes first and where they obtained notability comes second. Chaplain clearly is more notable for his American work then his British work. However, if he never obtained American citizenship, he should not be listed as American. If somebody shows reliable sources that he obtained American citizenship, he should be listed as British-American. JDDJS (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

As noted above, that's not the case here, so "American" doesn't belong in opening sentence as it would incorrectly imply he had citizenship there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

He retained his British citizenship throughout as evidenced by his substantive knighthood and style of "Sir". If he had have become and American it would have been an honorary knighthood only and he would not have been entitled to the style of "Sir". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Citizenship focus

It seems that all of the replies rely on the fact that because he chose not to become a U.S. citizen, and by default remained a British citizen, then his notability statement should not mention America. The notability guideline states, On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Add to that the MOS guideline, which makes details like citizenship often secondary:

The opening paragraph should usually provide context. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country ... where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.

And of course, since he never, until late in his career, filmed anything in England, either as actor, director, composer, screenwriter, producer or editor, stating that he was "an English filmmaker" in the first sentence is erroneous context and misleading; it implies he lived in England as a filmmaker. We should not assume everyone will read or understand the subsequent facts, such as that 99% of his notability came from his films, not his early-career music hall vaudeville acts with Fred Karno's company. It wasn't until he began filming with Essany, an American film studio, that he became a star.

Chaplin saw himself as an American when he visited England after he became a film star. Michael North, in Reading 1922 (Oxford, 1999), writes: When Chaplin arrived in England, he felt sadly estranged, having become very much an American... Dan Kamin, in The Comedy of Charlie Chaplin (2008), referred to him as an "American artist."

So maybe Encyclopedia Britannica offers the best compromise, describing him in its lead sentence as a "British-born American actor and director, who won international fame ..." Although the guidelines also state that birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can be in the lead if relevant to the person's notability... Since his music hall period had little to do with his notability as most people know it, it's questionable whether saying where he was born should be in the opening sentence.

In any case, since he was never an "English filmmaker," that statement should be rewritten to be up front and honest with readers. Had he become a U.S. citizen during his nearly 40 years as an American filmmaker, this citizenship issue would be moot. But just because he never did, is no excuse for redefining his career and misleading readers unfamiliar with him. --Light show (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

As to why this issue is important, IMO, it's because it may affect numerous other bios. Stan Laurel, for instance, is also wrongly described as an English actor, when he similarly only did some early music hall work in England. And Alfred Hitchcock, who did become a U.S. citizen, and made most of his films in the U.S., is also misdescribed as an "English film director and producer." --Light show (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Clearly it's important to you. Chaplin was English, or more precisely a Londoner. Hollywood is the location of all the major film studios. You seem to think that once you work in Hollywood you change nationality. In an alternate universe, if your point of view was indeed the case there wouldn't be any other nationality in film but American, there wouldn't be Meryl Streep's speech at the awards ceremony two months ago about most of the workers in the room being foreign. An Englishman in New York wouldn't apply either...using your point of view. BT Curry (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

How about "... was an English comic actor who found greater fame in Hollywood as an actor, filmmaker, and composer during the era of silent film"? BTW, let's avoid the term "American ..." unless you can show he was also active in either Canada or Mexico. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Martin, his career is already in the lede. As a featured article it's best to avoid duplication. Edward Highgate (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The above suggestion was to replace the contentious "... was an English comic actor, filmmaker, and composer who rose to fame during the era of silent film" not to duplicate it. The only duplicated word then is "actor". I intentionally removed the adjective from the Hollywood phase since he did so much more than just comic acting. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be better to use something less repetitive (if mentioning Hollywood at all) like "who rose to fame during Hollywood's silent film era". I was about to say "rose to fame in Hollywood", but he did previously gain recognition for his stage work in London. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the body of the article already is more than sufficient to detail how and where Chaplin made his success. Lets not try to use the lede for purposes other than intended. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Citizenship/nationality is a legal concept that leaves no space for interpretation. Chaplin was a UK citizen for his entire life, and while he resided and worked in the US for four decades, he was still legally considered an alien by the US authorities; to claim that he was an American is simply false. As for whether he identified as an American, no, he stated publicly that he identified as English, and his films are thoroughly influenced by his British background (e.g. they take place in urban settings which mimic Kennington, where he grew up). His refusal to apply for US citizenship was one of the reasons why he got into such trouble in the US the 1940s and was eventually booted out of the country. Yes, he is an important figure in American film history, but that does not change his nationality — following your logic we could also state that he had no nationality given the importance of his films to film history in general. That it's even necessary to have this discussion is quite troubling, as is Light show's campaign to introduce wrong information to Wikipedia in order to satisfy his own peculiar and misguided patriotism. LS, you're not approaching an article by first doing the research and then editing based on what you've learned, but are instead attempting to shape the article according to your opinions, by only using source material that suits your particular ideas. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Very well put, Susie. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Very poorly put, Susie. There are two parts to your comment: one dealing with his legal status and citizenship, and the other a repeated violation of AGF guidelines by mind-reading and implying an agenda. And unfortunately, both parts are wrong and off-topic.

The guidelines are clear: The opening paragraph should usually provide context. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country ... where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. In other words, this is not about how he would apply for a passport or run for office. It's a purely encyclopedic definition that WP uses for describing notability, which is the key requirement for any article. What he did growing up, or what settings he mimicked when producing films in America, or what his problems with the U.S. government were, which may have been related to the smear campaign against him, is off-topic. This man is interested in his citizenship; but when he and D. W. Griffith, Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford founded United Artists, his legal citizenship was mostly irrelevant, as it should be in the lead. --Light show (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't intending to chime in on this (beyond responding to Martin) but when Susie states the user Light show is "attempting to shape the article according to your opinions", that's exactly the case. Besides that, congrats on getting this to featured article status Susie. Edward Highgate (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Not my opinion, Chaplin's. During a New York bond rally in 1918, Chaplin yelled out to the crowd: Although British-born, I am 144 percent American, and would be in the trenches if it were not for a physical disability. --Light show (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Other reliable sources describe him as a British-born filmmaker:

The Encyclopedia of British Film, Oxford (2013); The Routledge Companion to British Cinema History, Routledge (2017); The American Film Institute Desk Reference, Dorling Kindersley Publishing (2002); Encyclopedia Britannica, EB (1998). --Light show (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And a multitude of sources state English. Roger Ebert states he was a British filmmaker, so English or British. There is no consensus for any change. BT Curry (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If Chaplin never held American citizenship then he was technically an alien when within the USA which it would seem would preclude him from ever being regarded as an 'American'. Presumably if he were still alive then he would require a Green card in order to live and work in the US.

While Chaplin lived and worked in the US he had none of the legal rights a US citizen had. So he wasn't an 'American'.

" .. Chaplin saw himself as an American when he visited England after he became a film star. Michael North, in Reading 1922 (Oxford, 1999), writes: When Chaplin arrived in England, he felt sadly estranged, having become very much an American... Dan Kamin, in The Comedy of Charlie Chaplin (2008), referred to him as an "American artist." ... " these are all statements made by third parties, and are hearsay, as unless Chaplin himself said this, they are worthless as statements of his views. They are someone else's' opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.200 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC: on describing Chaplin's nationality as a filmmaker

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Chaplin be described as (A), an English (or British) filmmaker, or (B), a British-born filmmaker? 20:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• B: His notability as an actor, director, composer, screenwriter, producer and editor, came in America. Stating that he was "an English filmmaker" could be is misleading since it implies he lived in England as a filmmaker. --Light show (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• A: He was an English citizen his whole life regardless of where he resided during most of his life. As noted above, the fact that he refused to become a US citizen is one of the reasons he got into legal trouble with American authorities. Light show, you quite blatantly are disregarding what constitutes one's citizenship/nationality, and are trying way too hard to prove a faulty point. Please desist per WP:POINT and WP:IDHT. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please note guidelines: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page. --Light show (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Light show's comments are littered with original research and personal opinion. Chaplin was English, made his name with the Karno troupe in the British music hall, worked in Hollywood for much of his career, followed by making films in England, before being knighted for his work. As stated previously Light show seems to believe that once you work in Hollywood you lose your nationality. If this were the case, with most of the major film studios being in Hollywood, there wouldn't be any other nationality in film. Meryl Streep's recent comments about the variety of nationalities wouldn't apply. The location of the film studios is your nationality, according to Light show. You again put forward your own point of view by saying it implies he worked in England as a filmmaker. It doesn't imply anything of the sort. In terms of English or British, the film critic Roger Ebert called Chaplin a British filmmaker, but Chaplin is best known as a Londoner, born and bred in England, hence English is more specific. BT Curry (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the threaded discussion section below is for personal comments like this. And BTW, none of my earlier comments are opinions. If they are, and you point them out below, I'll strike them. --Light show (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

To use the most recent example, you stated it is misleading, that's your opinion. Your comments above are littered with them. Roger Ebert referred to Chaplin as a British filmmaker, you are saying Ebert is misleading, that would be your opinion. BT Curry (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Chaplin wasn't a "English citizen". There was, and is, no such thing.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, British nationality law refers to British citizens as opposed to the constituent countries. BT Curry (talk) 22:45 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A Light show, that is patent nonsense. He is English and British. A persons nationality doesn't change, unless they explicitly give it up, which he never did. scope_creep (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Since he was born in England in 1889 he would have been born a citizen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", As a legal foreign national in the United States he would have had to carry a passport, and on that United Kingdom passport under the heading "Nationality" it would have said "British Citizen". Mediatech492 (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it would have said "British subject", I think.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

b British born, for that is what he is, I doubt most anyone even knew he was British (I did) or that he retained his citizenship. L3X1 (distant write) 14:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Its a silly survey. Chaplin is English and held British citizenship his whole life. As recent as 2014 foreigners from outside the UK named him among the best known British icons (just read it in Adele's page) in a poll conducted by the British council. I'm here for another reason (question below). AlanArkin55 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC) sock coment L3X1 (distant write) 02:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

ANot just British born, but British for his entire life. The first sentence of a bio lead should first state a person's nationality (as per MOS), and that's what our readers expect us to do. To call him an American would be false and misleading. See also the above discussions. Light show isn't doing this to make Wikipedia more accurate, but it attempting to change content to reflect his opinions, which is very concerning. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

If you read the RfC more carefully, you'll discover that describing him as American is not part of it. --Light show (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Groundhog day with the same editor pov pushing. As far as I'm concerned Light show qualifies as a disruptive editor, evidenced by changing the nationality of non Americans to American actors (look at the users edit history). I reverted the users edit on here as Chaplin being English is not altered by the users pov. Edward Highgate (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC) sock vote L3X1 (distant write) 02:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A - with a preference for English, seeing as he was born in London. It's not possible, as far as I know, to be born in "Britain". Cassianto^Talk 17:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You can only be born in either England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland. London is in England. Why use "Britain" to describe Chaplin's birthplace when we can be more accurate and say "English"? To say "I was born in Britain" is like saying "I was born in Europe". It's far too vague. Cassianto^Talk 08:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not impossible to be born in Europe.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was. Cassianto^Talk 12:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A, obviously. He has achieved a degree of success and renown in the UK and actively refused to take US citizenship.To suggest he was not British (or English) is misleading and damaging. (And to !vote B because of one's own ignorance that CC was English is bizzare. I suppose that's we should be grateful that this rather silly brouhaha has managed to educate one person, even if it has wasted the time of numerous others). All the best, The Bounder (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

B. Summoned by bot. Wording is preferable given long career in US, despite never having acquired citizenship. Coretheapple (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A On further consideration I'm going with "A." I think that to make this "B" we would, as a matter of consistency, have to utilize similar terminology for other actors with similar backgrounds. Stan Laurel, whose career trajectory was similar, is described as "English." So I think that with Chaplin we have to go with "British." Coretheapple (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A as being non-contestable. We might well append "known for his American films" as this is where his career primarily was. Collect (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A, Charlie Chaplin was British. He took no measures to lose his British citizenship. The solution is simple. Simply have the lead sentence declare: “Sir Charles Spencer "Charlie" Chaplin, KBE (16 April 1889 – 25 December 1977) was an English comic actor, filmmaker, and composer who rose to fame in America during the era of silent film.” By specifying the place where he created his fame, Wikipedia will take into account that his notability as an actor, producer, director, screenwriter and editor, occurred in America. This will reflect that he refused to become a US citizen (which as noted by User: Snuggums is one of the reasons he got into legal trouble with American authorities) The cause of his legal problems is documented in the article via reliable sources and this should continued to be mentioned in the article of course, but not in the lead of the article. desmay (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What concerns me about that phrasing is that it seems to imply that he was only or mainly famous in the US when he was in fact an international star. If the lead should be changed (and I think it should be noted that the majority of editors don't seem to think that Chaplin's career in the US is downplayed in the lead), I would propose this: "Chaplin was scouted for the film industry and began appearing in 1914 for Keystone Studios in California" (highlighted bit is the addition). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

How about this: Charlie Chaplin was an world famous English film star who spent most of his career in America as an actor, filmmaker, director, composer, and producer. --Light show (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think it's acceptable to introduce weasel words into a featured article? Cassianto^Talk 08:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment: It seems that the RfC choices between A and B are still a bit complex and some of the replies drift off into other topics. A few observations: The RfC is not questioning whether Chaplin remained a British citizen (or subject.) It is not implying that he ever became an American citizen. It is not implying that for nationality purposes he should be described as an American, although he said he was relevant to his profession.

The issue is whether the lead introducing his notability as an actor, director, composer, screenwriter, producer and editor, which came during his 40 years in America, should say he was an "English actor ..." or a "British-born actor ..." As it is, the lead seems to intentionally downplay his relationship to America, with only a single mention: At 19, he was signed to the prestigious Fred Karno company, which took him to America. Took him to America? But that's not the only trivialized America-related detail in the lead. There's also this one: Chaplin was forced to leave the United States and settle in Switzerland. Not only was he never "forced" to leave, but he was never "forced" to "settle in Switzerland." He chose Switzerland over England for other reasons. In fact he did not like skiing, and disliked cold weather and snow. That was one of the reasons he said he loved California.

As for some of the survey comments, Snuggums states up front, "He was an English citizen his whole life ..." User:Scope creep similarly focused on his nationality. User: Mediatech492 the same: "British Citizen". User:THS, "Not just British born, but British for his entire life." And Cassianto, "English, seeing as he was born in London."

Although no one denies he was born in Britain, the "A" votes prefer not to include that fact in the lead. That has the effect, IMO, of misleading countless readers unfamiliar with Chaplin, making many who don't read the massive article assume he spent his career in England. --Light show (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That is your POV and is not a factual based finding. Cassianto^Talk 18:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Light show, please stop wasting everyone's time and stop undermining whatever credibility this encyclopedia has by trying to bend it to suit your whims instead of facts. It's only you who believes that Chaplin's work in America is downplayed in the lead. As for your absolutely ridiculous claim about the US not booting him out – yeah sure, technically he could have tried to go back, but the cancelation of his return permit was a strong message from an American government already convinced Chaplin was an enemy, and had he returned it would have meant a thorough investigation and interrogation (possibly leading to a trial). I'm not going to bother with explaining anything more, because it's patently clear it's not that you don't know these things, it's that you just want Wikipedia to reflect your opinions, not facts. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I agree, the demonstrated facts do not support the assertions of "User:Light show". It is time to end this conversation and move on. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Not my opinion. I'm going by the facts in the article only. Chaplin decided to hold the world premiere of "Limelight" in London, since it was the setting of the film...Maland has concluded... that the US government had no real evidence to prevent Chaplin's re-entry. It is likely that he would have gained entry if he had applied for it....The couple decided to settle in Switzerland.

Although it's still off-topic from the RfC, since you insist on arguing about it, the lead which you wrote is still obviously misleading: Chaplin was forced to leave the United States and settle in Switzerland. So if you want to continue arguing about it, argue with yourself, not me. --Light show (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• There's no reason to rake Light show over the coals for this proposal, and the world wouldn't end if it was enacted. I object to the attacks on them for "wasting time." This is not a waste of time. My initial view was to go with B. However, I switched to A when I noticed that the general practice in these matters is to go with the citizenship of the actor, as with his friend and contemporary Laurel. Cary Grant, who became an American citizen, is correctly referred to in his article as "British-American." Ditto Elizabeth Taylor. I am not aware of "British born" being utilized to denote British performers who spent most of their careers in the U.S. but did not become U.S. citizens. Coretheapple (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "utilized." Very reliable sources describe him as a British-born filmmaker: The Encyclopedia of British Film, Oxford (2013); The Routledge Companion to British Cinema History, Routledge (2017); The American Film Institute Desk Reference, Dorling Kindersley Publishing (2002), and Encyclopedia Britannica, EB (1998), with its opening description: "British-born American actor and director, who won international fame ..."

There are some options for adding accuracy to the lead, with some suggestions beginning with, IMO, the most accurate to the least:

1. He was an actor, filmmaker, and composer.
2. He was an actor . . . who spent most of his career in America.
3. He was an American actor . . . who was born and raised in England.
4. He was an English-born actor . . . who spent most of career in America.
5. Current lead: He was an English actor . . . . (His minimal connection to America in the lead is from being part of a tour, and noting later that he "was forced to leave the United States and settle in Switzerland.")

According to the MOS guidelines, even mentioning his place of birth or citizenship in the lead sentence is debatable since it's typically in the infobox only. And then we have someone like Alfred Hitchcock, who did most of his films in America and even became a U.S. citizen, is still described as "an English film director and producer." --Light show (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(Addendum) Is his place of birth any more significant than his choosing to spend the last 36 years of his life in Switzerland, where he is buried? Is it relevant that his public appreciation seems to have come mostly from outside the U.K., with his final one being a knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II, "though he was too weak to kneel and received the honour in his wheelchair"? --Light show (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well like I said, the skies won't fall if B is utilized, If you can find that a preponderance of reliable sources describe him as something other than British, I'll flip-flop back to B. Coretheapple (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Light show, it's only you who thinks it's unclear from the lead that Chaplin spent the most important years of his career in the US. According to the MOS, we give official citizenship priority, as is logical. Chaplin wasn't just born in England, he was English/British for his whole life and his Britishness was important to his works and identity, as has been outlined above. You seem to be waging a campaign to change the nationality of several famous figures to American, regardless of whether they ever held citizenship —e.g. Claire Bloom, Omar Sharif and Maximilian Schell— but based on your weird interpretations and misguided patriotism. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Unlike some, I prefer to just go by WP guidelines. --Light show (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that why you're not allowed to upload anymore images or take part in any discussion or edits at Stanley Kubrick? Cassianto^Talk 08:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Another way to keep the opening accurate and less political would be similar to Oliver Sacks's lead:

...was a British neurologist, naturalist and author. Born and educated mostly in Great Britain, he spent his career in the United States. Or that of Omar Sharif: He began his career in his native country in the 1950s, but is best known for his appearances in both British and American productions. Along with Elizabeth Taylor: She began as a child actress in the early 1940s, and was one of the most popular stars of classical Hollywood cinema in the 1950s.--Light show (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

But on the other hand, when someone was born in one country and spent their career in another, Encyclopedia Britannica's description of Chaplin is simpler: British-born American actor and director, who won international fame ... --Light show (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly how is stating a person's legal nationality status a "political" statement? Mediatech492 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Good question. But it was THS who wrote the entire RfC is based on [my] weird interpretations and misguided patriotism. Ask her. --Light show (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. Do you have an answer, or are you just going to continue wasting everyone's time? Mediatech492 (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestion: The following phrasing was added in the survey section above, but to avoid cluttering up that area I'll just put it here for any comments. From that original phrasing above I removed some redundant words since the same detail is in the first paragraph: considered one of the most important figure in the history of the film industry. If anyone feels that I should also strike out in America as irrelevant, feel free to say so.

Charlie Chaplin was an English film star who spent most of his career in America as an actor, filmmaker, director, composer, and producer. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What concerns me about that phrasing is that it seems to imply that he was only or mainly famous in the US when he was in fact an international star. If the lead should be changed (and I think it should be noted that the majority of editors don't seem to think that Chaplin's career in the US is downplayed in the lead), I would propose this: "Chaplin was scouted for the film industry and began appearing in 1914 for Keystone Studios in California" (highlighted bit is the addition). TrueHeartSusie3

Your main concern is already dealt with in the second sentence of the current lead: Chaplin became a worldwide icon through his screen persona "the Tramp" and is considered one of the most important figures in the history of the film industry. I guess you could substitute "international star" for "worldwide icon," but the word "star" would then be repeated.--Light show (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 15 incident (1932)

There's an interesting bit of trivia involving Chaplin avoiding possible assassination while on a trip to Japan in 1932 on the May 15 Incident page. Do you think this should be mentioned on this page in some way? Unimaginable666 (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, a planned assassination isn't trivial. I think it should be mentioned here. Also, he was obviously interested in East Asia, but this isn't really explored in the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2017

I am requesting that the reason for his marriage to Oona ending is changed. Most people assume that the d. at the end of their marriage means divorced. I am requesting it be changed to "his death" in the section under his name with his biography including his marriages. Abishop47 (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"Div" means divorce, as the preceding entries in the list show; and "d" means death, and has the benefit of a tooltip explanation if you hover over it. But the better point is that "death" is ambiguous as to whether it means his or her death, so for clarity I have changed d to "his death". Bencherlite^Talk 12:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring reliable sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The two most referenced sources in the bio are from the Robinson and Maland biographies. However, Maland's clearly stated description of Chaplin as having been an American filmmaker is disregarded, as noted in a recent edit which trimmed off that fact.

Per Maland's biography (p. 84):

As Chaplin's fame enabled him to make contacts there [Hollywood], his relationships with some of these intellectuals, as well as their friendships among themselves, evenetually led to frequent praise for Chaplin in their articles and books as the first and only important American screen artist. Public kudos from such circles gave Chaplin's star image a legitimacy among the intelligentsia rarely attained by an American filmmaker before the studio system broke up.

Chaplin is called a "British American filmmaker" in a college textbook on film art, Understanding Art, (p. 169), and he himself said to a large crowd in New York, "I am 144 percent American...". Another widely used reference in this bio is Dan Kamin's book, The Comedy of Charlie Chaplin: Artistry in Motion, in which he called Chaplin an "American artist."(p. 181).

As for WP guidelines, which cover how he should be described in the opening paragraph, do any sources claim that he was ever "an English...filmmaker and composer", (or director, or silent film actor)? However, the opening sentence in the bio makes that claim. It therefore disregards the guidelines with misleading context: As the guidelines state:

The opening paragraph should usually provide context. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.

Unless I'm misreading those guidelines, his citizenship in England, from where he moved to Hollywood at 19, and actually never lived there again, would mean the context of his notability is incorrect. To add the required context, he should be described as having been an "American filmmaker." --Light show (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I see there was a lengthy discussion and RFC about this only a few months ago. Start another one if you really want, but I doubt there's much point. --Loeba (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was about whether he should be described as an "English (or British) filmmaker, or a British-born filmmaker." It was not about whether he was also an American filmmaker. --Light show (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop wasting everyone's time Light show. Please. This discussion has been had loads of times with you.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Was Charlie Chaplin an American filmmaker?

Should Charlie Chaplin be described as having been an American filmmaker? --00:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that the previous RFC three months ago (above) was asking which of two options was a better lead phrasing due to his place of birth and never-changed citizenship: "English (or British) filmmaker, or a British-born filmmaker." It did not ask whether or not he should, or could, also be described as having been an American filmmaker. 00:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes: Based on the clear guidelines cited in the previous section. He directed, wrote, acted in, produced, and scored American films, which was the primary source of his notability. He co-founded one of America's leading studios. It would be misleading to ignore the context of his career by describing him as having been an English filmmaker. "English-born American filmmaker" would be more accurate. --Light show (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDACT. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• No At the risk of WP:DONTFEED I suggest you read the opening sentence: "was an English comic actor, filmmaker, and composer who rose to fame making silent films in the U.S". The phrasing has been agreed by numerous editors and clearly shows that (1) he remained a British citizen and (2) He rose to fame in the U.S. Both undeniable facts and which includes the point you are making at tedious length. He did, of course, continue to make films after the US threw him out; should we include Swiss or British in the description of film maker? Take Snuggums colourful advice; WP:DROPTHESTICK. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The "U.S." part was added for the first time yesterday. Until then, the lead made no mention of him being an American filmmaker, but only said he "rose to fame during the era of silent film." But at least you agree that "he rose to fame in the U.S." --Light show (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Right, let's put this to rest. No. Chaplin actively resisted getting American citizenship, even under enormous pressure to do so. Nationality doesn't become default by living somewhere - it's a legal and/or emotional construct. Evidently Chaplin wasn't American by either of these criteria so for us to describe him as such would be ridiculous. The line you quoted from the MOS is dumb and should be removed. Loeba (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That revert should not have been made since the statement is obviously true, no one, including you, has denied it and some here have agreed with it. And the accuracy of the statement would not be affected by the outcome of this RFC.

Is it that distasteful to say he "rose to fame making silent films in the U.S.", as opposed to "rose to fame in the era of silent film."? --Light show (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• No, as above, and as per all the same arguments in the recent RfC on exactly the same subject. This RfC is distruptive, given the very recent RfC on the same subject at which the OP was nearly the only voice advocating a change. I don't want to personalise this, but Light Show, you're getting dangerously close to another ANI vote on being topic banned from yet another biography for the misuse of the RfC system to push your POV beyond all reasonable grounds. Can I suggest you take this article from your watchlist and step a long way away from it? - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming you have some rationale for your "No," since neither the threats nor personal attacks actually provide any. --Light show (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I have made no threats or personal attacks (an explanation of what you consider to be a personal attack, or an apology and strike your accusation when you can't provide one). I have clearly put my rationale: "as above, and as per all the same arguments in the recent RfC on exactly the same subject". - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Without providing a rationale, all you can write is "This RfC is disruptive... I don't want to personalise this, but you're getting dangerously close to another ANI...to push your POV." When you apologize for these and the countless others, like those in Sellers and Kubrick, ask then. --Light show (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud - I have provided a rationale, so stop trying to misrepresent other people's positions. To repeat, just so that even you can understand: I am in agreement wth the rationales provided in this thread by Martin of Sheffield, Loeba and TrueHeartSusie3. I also agree with the very good rationales provided by nearly all the people who commented in the RfC not that long ago which was on exactly the same point.

Well done on providing the links to the trips to ANI, both of which you started, and both of which the community decided reflected very, very badly on you. Please feel free to try again with this one - I am sure that several people would be happy if you named them as an "uncivil" editor, if it leads to yet another topic ban to sit alongside all your other editing restrictions. - SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• No, as per what I wrote in the previous RfC. And yes, Light show should be banned from at least editing Chaplin. His disruptive behaviour is not going to end otherwise. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
• No, as per the eloquently stated rationales of those opposing in the very recently closed RfC above that was snow closed on 1 May; raising the same matter yet again so quickly does, to me, seem disruptive. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• NO Chaplin was never a US citizen. Given the history of his persecution by the USG under the banner of "hunting communists", it would seem to do disservice to his memory to even try labeling him as an American.

This RfC is merely a variation on a theme in an effort to have the article worded in a way it pleases one editor who keeps opening them. This is what he wants, never mind if it's correct, so he continues to start RfCs hoping to break down the others who disagree with him. The editor has been very disruptive over time at the Chaplin article, just as he was at the Peter Sellers and Stanley Kubrick articles until he was topic banned from them. And if he considers this a "personal attack", I invite him to take me to ANI. We hope (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• No Quite obvious why, isn't it? -- ψλ ● ✉ 01:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charlie Chaplin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224103005/http://www.charliechaplin.com/en/us/dvds to http://www.charliechaplin.com/en/us/dvds
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313013148/http://www.charliechaplin.com/en/uk/dvds to http://www.charliechaplin.com/en/uk/dvds
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413030359/http://www.svenskateatern.fi/fi/ohjelmisto/ohjelmisto/chaplin/ to http://www.svenskateatern.fi/fi/ohjelmisto/ohjelmisto/chaplin/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028025117/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/article/57899.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/article/57899.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

MOS:NICKNAME

I don't understand why my edit was reverted. Is it being claimed that 'Charlie' is not a well-known hypocorism for 'Charles'? William Avery (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a common pattern used on Wikipedia, see also Julie Andrews, Tim Conway, and Lon Chaney, among many others. MOS:NICKNAME is a guideline, not a rule in stone. In any case it is hardly something worth quibbling about. Mediatech492 (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I see. I thought you had stated on reverting that it was in line with MOS:NICKNAME; but now you are saying that MOS:NICKNAME is not to be applied in this case. I've no problem with not applying a guideline if there's a reason not to, but what would that reason be in this case? The reasoning that material exists elsewhere that doesn't conform to the manual of style is rather poor argument for not applying the manual of style to this article, unless there's a valid reason in those cases which is being applied here. Anyway, if, as far as you are concerned, its not something worth 'quibbling' about, I take it you won't mind if I reapply the change? William Avery (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Very well, since you've asked. The answer is no. The objective here should be improving the article, not conforming to arbitrary guidelines. You have not shown how your proposed edit would constitute an improvement. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It is sometime desirable for individual articles to conform to apparently arbitrary guidelines, in order that the reader is presented with a consistent set of articles. William Avery (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And as I've already pointed out, there is nothing inconsistent here with other articles of similar type. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If you think Charlie Chaplin is odd, I hesitate to think what you'll make of Jello Biafra. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Can't see anything wrong there. William Avery (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

He is known as Charlie Chaplin, the article title is Charlie Chaplin and that is the form it appeared in when the article went through a GA review, a Peer review and FAC without comment or complaint from any of the experienced reviewing editors involved. I see no pressing reason for it to be changed from this acceptable usage now. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no pressing reason, but I'm still looking for an actual explicit reason why it wouldn't conform to the manual of style. Why would it be different from Mick Jagger, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton? William "Will" Avery (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@William Avery: I was pointed here as though a consensus had been reached, but the primary argument here seems to be "it was like this so it shouldn't change." And seeing as the reversion was made by Sagaciousphil, who never responded to your last inquiry, this seems like a case of false consensus effect. As far as edits in general go, I understand that an absence of change can serve as a form of consensus in and of itself, but this isn't really one of those cases. Chaplin is almost just as frequently credited as Charles, particularly in his writing and directing efforts. And there's no discernible reason that someone who ended up at the article would be confused by how a man name Charles came to be referred to as Charlie. There definitely hasn't been a consensus reached here, and just because an editor thinks this is splitting hairs doesn't mean that the points brought up are invalid. This is a really weird exception to make. The argument about it reaching featured with no comment on this is actually a fair point, but I think it's because it just wasn't viewed as redundant by those who worked on it. I only recently found it redundant and then noticed there was a guideline that seemed to share that belief. If you think the name should stay I can understand that, but your argument again, Phil, seems to be "It should stay because it's there already." And that's really not much of an argument when its presence is challenged. Sock (tock talk) 15:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No, the question was just allowed to drop. It seemed like a civilised option, and I just don't have much appetite for intransigence, in others or myself. William Avery (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox bloat

Ok, so seeing two editors, namely SNUGGUMS and Keivan.f, can't be bothered to adhere to their part of the WP:BRD cycle, I'll start this here. Please can you both explain why you feel it's necessary to duplicate Chaplain's parents and offspring in the infobox when there is already a linked, separate article called "Chaplin family" in the "relatives" field? Cassianto^Talk 23:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that the names of his children should be included in the info box, that's why I immediately reverted my edit, but based on what I have seen on numerous articles, the names of parents can be excluded when they are not notable or of any importance. Apparently his parents were notable enough to have their own articles here on Wikipedia, so I don't understand why there's no problem in listing his spouses (which is of course acceptable based on the guidelines) but on the other hand his parents' names must not be included separately! Keivan.f^Talk 23:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a linked article containing the names of all family members, as pointed above. If it were up to me, the damned infobox would be deleted in whole, but in the hope of not having to go down that road, keeping it concise would be the next best option. I do not believe we need to repeat family members aside an article that was created purely for that purpose. Cassianto^Talk 23:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting to include all children names since he did have 11, but didn't really see any harm in including parents (only 2 people). The Chaplin family article deals with extended relatives like his grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nephew, and grandnephews, which of course is a wider scope than his immediate family. On another note, Cassianto, your assertion that I "can't be bothered to adhere" to BRD is misleading when I only made one revert; it's not like I made multiple edits on the matter. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You clearly saw I'd reverted so the idea is to discuss, even if the Bold part of the deal wasn't you. Cassianto^Talk 00:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2018

Please add,

Charles Spencer Chaplin was born in Black Patch, Smethwick, Birmingham to a traveler family. This information was only discovered in 2016 following the discovery of a letter in one of his desk drawers by his daughter.

sources: Marvindacat (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done that's only speculation based on the letter, and as one of those links admits, there is no birth certificate that could verify this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Birthplace

I know it isn't known for sure exactly where he was born, but we do know he was born in England. Could we at least add just England as his birthplace in the infobox? Dpm12 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I'll go ahead and add that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Eight Lancashire Lads

Note 5 indicates that it was thought that Charlie Chaplin had finished working with Eight Lancashire lads in December 1900. There is a United Kingdom Census entry for 31st March 1901, showing that Charlie was residing at 94 Ferndale Road Lambeth

This seems to indicate that he was still with the group until at least April 1901. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courauquart (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot use primary sources :( TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Actually that is not true, WP guidelines say that Primary Sources can be reliable and usable, but should be used "with caution". Mediatech492 (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that we can't do 'original research', and this would certainly fall under that category. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

"Carol Ann", not "Carole Ann"

I fixed this in 2013, and came back in 2018 only to see that someone had uncorrected this again. The person who Chaplin had to pay child support for was named "Carol Ann", and not "Carole Ann" with an "e". There is only one source, Maland, who spells her name with an "e". All other sources I could find that were not simply copies from this Wikipedia article spell her name as "Carol", such as this International News photo caption of a photo of Carol Ann and her mother, this press clipping from Dec. 19, 1944, and this other press report from Dec. 27, 1944, and this April 1945 picture and press clip. So, either everybody got it wrong except for Maland, or Maland got it wrong. I find the latter more plausible. So, if anyone uncorrects it back to "Carole" again, please re-re-correct it back to "Carol Ann". Thanks. -- HiEv 11:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

1939 -- 1952

This entire section glosses over what he was doing during WWII and where he was. What was he doing? Other than trials, there is not one significant action reported for 1941 - 1945 when Britain was strained to the breaking point and the U.S.A. was losing a two-front war (1942). Where WAS he and where was he living? Did he ever do ANYTHING for the Allies during WWII? This section makes no sense, in ignoring a world-wide event during his life.Starhistory22 (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Fron the 'Communist Accusations' section: "His political activity had heightened during World War II, when he campaigned for the opening of a Second Front to help the Soviet Union and supported various Soviet–American friendship groups." It's also mentioned how much he was terrified by the extreme nationalism of the Axis powers, and he certainly made his voice heard via The Great Dictator. But that's all that is touched on in the article because yeah, that's "all" he did. Chaplin was already 50 by the time WW2 was declared so he couldn't see any action, if that's what you mean. Loeba (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

More on Chaplin as composer...

Another source of information about CC's musical composition work is the liner notes to the 1985 release "Oh! that Cello". [1] I have a copy of this CD so, if there are no objections, I'll add a few sentences to the article. Thnx! jxm (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Nephew

I think it should be noted somewhere in the article that Chaplin's nephew, Spencer Dryden, was drummer for Jefferson Airplane. 12.154.111.67 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Maternal grandmother being gypsy

Hi.

Would someone please add info about his maternal grandmother being gypsy?

It's in his autobiography.

ref>Charles Chaplin, Jr., with N. and M. Rau, My Father, Charlie Chaplin, Random House: New York,(1960), pages 7-8. Quoted in "The Religious Affiliation of Charlie Chaplin". Adherents.com. 2005.</ref>

http://www.adherents.com/people/pc/Charlie_Chaplin.html

"Charlie Chaplin, My Autobiography, page 19: Grandma was half gypsy [Roma]. This fact was the skeleton in our family cupboard. Nevertheless, Grandma bragged that her family always paid ground rent. Her maiden name was Smith. I remember her as a bright little old lady who always greeted me effusively with baby talk. She died before I was six. She was separated from Grandpa, for what reason neither grandparent would tell. But according to Aunt Kate there was a domestic triangle in which Grandpa surprised Grandma with a lover. To gauge the morals of our family by commonplace standards would be as erroneous as putting a thermometer in boiling water. With such genetic attributes, two pretty cobbler's daughters quickly left home and gravitated to the stage."

This article (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/feb/17/charlie-chaplin-gypsy-heritage) states that Chaplin kept a letter from a Hill relative telling him that he was born "in a caravan [that] belonged to the Gypsy Queen, who was my auntie. You were born on the Black Patch in Smethwick near Birmingham." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.168.157 (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

How about listing that he was born in London, England, instead of just "England?" Edsanville (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020

I would propose to change the text summarizing public reaction to Chaplin's speech at the end of "The Great Dictator" to incorporate most of the text at note "p" into the main text. Insert most of that text into the main article in place of the "[p]" reference.

As written, citing two sources, the article leaves the impression that reaction to Chaplin's speech was generally unfavorable. Note "p" presents substantial factual evidence supporting the opposite conclusion, so much so that it should be presented in the body of the text instead of as a reference note. LizsDad (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Photo of Chaplin playing the cello backwards

The photo of Chaplin playing the cello looks "wrong". The near-universal playing technique involves the bow being held in the right hand, with the fingering on the neck being done by the left hand. Even left-handed cellists play it the standard way; the only exception I can imagine would be a player with some sort of disability preventing the facile use of the fingers of the left hand. Left-handed bowing / right-handed fingering would also strongly encourage a reversing of the ordering of the strings — possible, but a big deal.

SO . . . my question is, did Chaplin really play the cello in this unconventional way? Or is the photo reversed?

A few years ago, someone did flip the photo (on Commons) to make it "look right", but no source backing this change was provided, and it was eventually flipped back to the original version (again, without explanation).

There's almost nothing in the photo to give away whether it was flipped — possibly some small detail in Chaplin's hair, or rings (or lack thereof) on his hands, I don't know. And of course, any modification of the photo to "correct" its orientation to what it "obviously" should look like would be forbidden as original research.

I would almost prefer not to have this photo in the article at all, unless there is some reliable source confirming that Chaplin really did play the cello in this way. Any thoughts? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of this, and I think more research would need to be done to find out whether it was the case. IMHO I would not be surprised if Chaplin was not as skilled a musician as he wanted to seem. It's been years since we put this article together, so sadly I don't have the books anymore. My suggestion would be that if it bothers you (unless someone else comes along with the information), check if there's anything about this in the biographies. I have a vague recollection of reading that he played the violin 'wrong' as well? Otherwise, we could tweak the caption to be 'Chaplin with a cello'? It's a nice image, visually-speaking, though. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

The tuning Pegs tell me that the photo is correctly oriented, and Charlie is either just posing or playing it backwards. Traditionally the pegs are ordered from top to bottom in high pitch (A3) to low pitch (C2) order, with the top peg on the right (as the viewer faces the front of the cello) and the bottom peg on the left, as the four pegs alternate sides across the instrument's string pitches. He does seem to have some familiarity with instrument as his playing position and bow grip are near perfect. The 'backwards' pose could also be just that, a pose designed to suit the existing lighting. | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If it is of any help, Chaplin in Limelight plays the violin left-handed in the scene with Keaton on piano. No doubt Chaplin is miming. But his bow attack on the strings and his right-hand position on the fingerboard is quite convincing. Of course, this only applies to the violin, and we would need a source to show that Chaplin even played the 'cello. (He may have just been posing with the 'cello or merely experimenting with its sound.) Mark Froelich (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

According to this source (https://www.charliechaplin.com/en/articles/26-Chaplin-Music?category=biography), he did have at least his violin strings reversed, so perhaps it was the same case with the cello?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Toraichi Kono

I recently wrote the page Toraichi Kono, and am a bit disappointed to see that Kono's name doesn't appear even once on Chaplin's article. He was Chaplin's valet and personal secretary for almost two decades, and lots of sources (you can find plenty cited at Toraichi Kono) portray Kono as being highly personally and professionally important to Chaplin during those decades. A documentary about Kono quotes Chaplin as saying "Kono is my man Friday, he is everything: muse, valet, private secretary, bodyguard". The reason I'm bringing this up on the talk page is that I don't want to just shoehorn in Kono's name in a way that doesn't improve the article; rather, I'm hoping someone has ideas about how we can work this part of the story into this article in a way that makes the Charlie Chaplin article's coverage of Charlie Chaplin more complete. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the idea is good, but it's quite difficult to 'shoehorn' him in, as the article has to leave out a lot of detail. How about creating a "Associates" section for the Chaplin template? That could also include people like Edna Purviance, Henry Bergman and Rollie Totheroh, whose careers are mostly associated with Chaplin's.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Shoulder Arms

"He spent four months filming the 45-minute-long picture, which was released in October 1918 with great success"
"45-minute-long" part needs attention.
Please see my input at Shoulder Arms Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shoulder_Arms
Tehonk (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Heading

I don't know much obout this kind of editing, but I suggest moving the page title from "Charlie Chaplin" (which is his nickname) to "Charles Chaplin" (which is his name). The "Charlie Chaplin" page could be a redirect to the main page. Thank you, G.L.Sirius (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I disapprove of that idea when "Charlie" is what he's more widely known as, even when "Charles" was his formal first name. See WP:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names for more. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to back up what SNUGGUMS says, this is a clear-cut case of Wikipedia policy to use as the article title the name the person is indisputably most well-known by. See also J. K. Rowling, Bill Clinton, John Le Carre etc. The first sentence of the article should state the person's formal full name as is the case here and in the other articles I linked to. OsFish (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Absurd overprecision

I started to fix this until I realized there were dozens of instances: the inflated dollar amounts are grotesquely overprecise e.g. $150,000 inflated to $2,580,863. Absurd. EEng 03:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. It only took a minute or two. Feel free to adjust the parameters if you don't like my choices. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Title

Why, in the title, is he 'Sir Charles Chaplin KBE'. Surely it should either be 'Sir Charles Chaplin', or 'Charles Chaplin KBE'. Otherwise it looks like he has a knighthood, and a KBE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.83.244.101 (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

School photo of Chaplin

The school photo of Chaplin is captioned 1897. In the photo, he is apparently seven years old. However the article states that he was born in 1899! 2A02:C7B:303:9600:51E9:72DF:7D84:3E5D (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No, the prose actually states he was born in 1889, so I don't see an issue here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

Charlie Chaplin was Born in Smethwick, Birmingham. 2.98.36.63 (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin ancestry

Okay, this is a "featured article", but it still has some controversial points:

• 1.Is some magazine article (which confuses Roma with Romanians grammatically) really a good source of info for Charlie Chaplin bioghraphie? And in general, is it true that his parents are of Romal origin, and not Irish travelers? Both groups are considered "Gypsies", but there are practically no Roma people in Britain, and according to statistics, basically all British Gypsies are from the local British population - Irish Travellers.
• 2. Why is there no other part of his parents' origin other than the gypsy part mentioned: there is an erroneous impression that his parents are 100% gypsies, but that's not what this source says. It says his parents are both HALF gypsies.109.254.254.152 (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Sanford and Lyons

Reaching out to those with experience with editing, approving articles relating to Music Hall artists and history for the following draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanford_and_Lyons

Thankyou so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriana2022 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we call this complaint story a myth?

I heard that as Charlie Chaplin was spending more time to actually live in Switzerland, he would be living too close to an Army base. He stated a noise-complaint, and the army personell would just up and leave due to the complaint. Did that really happen? --2001:4644:DC5B:0:3C62:FE6:1D7E:6714 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Change "which took him to America" to "which took him to the United States"

--94.44.114.152 (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Four citations

I don't think we need four citations for Chaplin's Romani grandmother, and some of them seem to be wrong (Adherents).--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Split of Biography section?

The Biography section seems to be extremely long and should probably be split up as it would be easier to navigate through. 2600:1008:B100:D264:E90A:36FE:3358:F1C9 (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Place of Birth incorect

Chaplin was bourn at Black Patch was a thriving Romany community on the industrial edge of Birmingham. Not London 81.108.223.197 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Source? EEng 21:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This is correct - his son opened a memorial there. Brummine (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Fabulous. We still need a reliable source. EEng 20:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Harry Lauder

Harry Lauder is described as British on Charlie Chaplin’s page. He is Scottish Judyawalker (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Stimulantia

I hope it is not against policy for me to post a link here to the 1967 Swedish anthology film Stimulantia. Most of the film comprises various fictions, but – and this is not mentioned in the EN Wikipedia article, though it is in the SV article – the first segment (0:53 – 10:23) is a documentary about Hans Abramson searching for the location of a dwelling where Chaplin once lived. I leave it to others with expertise in this area to decide whether it is useful to us in any way. Harfarhs (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Formatting

Why is the biography formatting in years, when other pages dont include years on them, out of all the articles ive read on wikipedia, not once have i seen a page formatted like this FreshYoMama (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Articles don't all have to look alike. The best way of presenting one subject may not be best for another subject. EEng 20:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)